"No refusal" DUI checkpoints

[Lunican]

"No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tampa

Tampa, Florida-- With New Year's Eve only days away, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration expects this to be one of the deadliest weeks of the year on the roads.

But now a new weapon is being used in the fight against drunk driving.

It's a change that could make you more likely to be convicted.

"I think it's a great deterrent for people," said Linda Unfried, from Mother's Against Drunk Driving in Hillsborough County.

Florida is among several states now holding what are called "no refusal" checkpoints.

It means if you refuse a breath test during a traffic stop, a judge is on site, and issues a warrant that allows police to perform a mandatory blood test.

Full Article:
http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/story.aspx?storyid=165079&catid=250

[marksjax]

Whatever happened to 'probable cause'?
I understand the proponents zeal to not have anyone drink and drive. But mandatory blood tests?
Yikes. Orwellian.

[duvaldude08]

^^^I agree. That sounds a little outrageous. A blood test on site? To me there is no point of DUI checkpoints in the beginning. They Tell you when and where they are going to be. So If you planning on drinking, you can just go another route. I do see the element of surprise working. But when you can turn on the local news and find out about them, that seems to defeat the purpose.

[Springfielder]

As much as I'm against drunk drivers and have no problem with check points...but a mandatory blood test...not sure I'm onboard with that. I feel that if there's sufficient probable cause that arises from the stop, then take the person into custody, then perhaps a blood test if they still refuse to cooperate with a breath test. But to take blood while still at a check point...not cool with that.

[Jaxson]

Have there been any DUI checkpoints in the Jax area lately?  I can't seem to recall any major instances.

[simms3]

I'm against "drunk" driving (hard to avoid drinking a normal amount and driving, which up to the cop's discretion could be construed as a DUI less safe anyway, even after 1 beer).  However, I believe driving a car, sober or otherwise, is an adult responsibility.  I'm against all DUI checkpoints, and this latest development makes my blood boil.  I'm also against a cop trying to get a person to blow after a routine stop.  So someone is speeding at night or fails to turn on a blinker while executing a turn.  Just because it's at night does that mean the person broke the minor traffic law simply because of alcohol?  That person probably speeds and fails to turn on a blinker all the time at 11 in the morning, yet if the person is even stopped, there are no alcohol assumptions.

If you drive at night (or really anytime), you must be extra vigilant and be on the lookout for aggressive drivers, intoxicated drivers, distracted drivers, sleepy drivers, and plain bad drivers.  Why is alcohol any worse than being distracted, aggressive, tired, or plain bad?  It's pathetic if you ask me.  I'm looking for more personal responsibility and waiting for people to depend less on the Nanny state police.  The MADD people are so hypocritical.  So many of them want less government in our lives, yet they are the ones that push for these ridiculous measures.  I am so anti-MADD it's unbelievable.  (I'm also against drunk driving, but those people make my blood boil)

[ChriswUfGator]

As much as I'm against drunk drivers and have no problem with check points...but a mandatory blood test...not sure I'm onboard with that. I feel that if there's sufficient probable cause that arises from the stop, then take the person into custody, then perhaps a blood test if they still refuse to cooperate with a breath test. But to take blood while still at a check point...not cool with that.

Refusal is its own crime, and that itself was the legislature's response to cries from these same people 10 years ago to force mandatory blood testing. The legislature refused, and instead made refusal a separate misdemeanor. The standard for a blood test, as I'm sure you know given your profession, is the suspect's refusal or incapacitation during a DUI investigation involving death, property damage, or bodily injury. You have the right to demand one test over the other, but the state cannot force you to comply with either absent an interest beyond mere traffic enforcement.

So given the history on this issue, I'd really be interested to know under what pretense are judges signing warrants for blood tests at a roadside random stop when not only is there no death, damage, or injury, but there isn't even probable cause? Strikes me as ludicrous.

These things are done in increments, folks, Rights are lost bit by bit, and throughout the past two decades they've been chipped away at. This is really the chickens coming home now, mandatory blood tests at random roadside checkpoints without probable cause. Wow.

[simms3]

Probable cause is so stupid, too.  Cops either accuse you of having alcohol on your breath or having a nastygma.  A nastygma has been proven to be the result of so many things beside alcohol, though "a lot" of alcohol can cause a nastygma.  It's been proven, as well, that most cops do not even know how to read a nastygma.  Also, cops often lie about breath.  You can swig mouth wash (which would increase BAC temporarily...not avisable), and the cop will still say he smells beer or whiskey (actually they never specify because they rarely actually do smell anything) on your breath.

Unfortunately, probable cause is the lowest or second lowest criteria in the law to be able to search.  I guess beyond a reasonable doubt is the lowest.  Unfortunately, not even the best lawyer can break the "probable cause" bullsh*t.  Actual law has borderline been thrown out the door regarding DUIs.

[NotNow]

I have never heard of such a checkpoint before.  I am assuming that an on site judge is issuing a search warrant and not an arrest warrant as the story states.  Seems pretty extreme, but MADD really is quite politically powerful. 

Simms, DUI's aren't really that hard.  Most times, they are found passed out behind the wheel or plastered against a guardrail.  But while I have never worked DUI as a regular assignment, I have found the "smell" of alcoholic beverage to be pretty strong.  Of course the smell alone won't result in arrest but in combination with unsteady legs, slurred speech, and stupor these arrests are not really rocket science. 

I'm not really sure what your point about probable cause or reasonable doubt is.  It appears that you might misunderstand what those terms mean.

[simms3]

Those terms basically mean that there doesn't need to be hard evidence.  That's all I need to know to have a problem with current laws dealing with DUIs.  And most DUIs are from routine stops, not from being "passed out at the wheel" or a car wrapped around a tree or railing.  Do you know how many DUIs there are?  Too many!  I would say that 40-50% of people my age that I know have had to fight at least one DUI, and most of these people are decent, hard working kids who haven't even been in a wreck.  They simply forgot to turn on a blinker when they merged or they were going 10 over at 11:00 at night (like the cop would have cared if it were 11:00 in the morning).  Heck, Dick Cheney and George Bush both got DUIs.

The punishments for DUIs nowadays are sometimes so severe that they exceed punishments of far worse crimes and crimes by repeat offenders.  DUI is the new witch-hunt of law enforcement.  Have you heard all the ads on the radio and seen the commercials on TV?  I mean you would think they were going after serial rapists and murderers.

I know someone who was going to be convicted of one DUI.  He got 10 days, 9 months of AA (a once a week drinker we're talking about), $2,000 fine (on top of $20+K for a good lawyer, court fees, and other previously paid fines), a psychiatric evaluation that cost $210, a week long Prime for Life course that cost another $400, 190 hours community service, 18 months probation with weekly check in and drug tests (no prior history of drug use), car key ignition breathylizer which is not cheap, and 120 day license suspension with pending restrictions on use of a car afterward.  He's taking it to a trial by jury.

Is a DUI with a BAC of 0.09 really that bad??  I don't think so!

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Florida driving laws are really harsh across the board.  I know this thread is about DUI, but I think most here would be surprised at the severity of a Driving While License Suspended ticket, and the reasons for a suspended license range from the understandable - too many points, to the inane - unpaid citations.  And Duval sends thier tickets to collections as soon as they can, adding an additional 40% to the original fine - and you don't have any choice but to pay. 

Pulled over for speeding and got extra tix for seatbelt and no proof of ins. - went to court, showed proof of ins. - dropped, speeding - reduced, seat belt - enforced.  Didn't have all the money to pay everything and forgot about the balance.  The next time I was pulled over, I spent the night in jail for DWLS.  I had my license on me, but it wasn't good anymore.  I tried to pay the old ticket and they referred me to a collection agency - 7 days waiting on paperwork.  7 days of driving around, knowing I could go back to jail if I get stopped for any little thing, but when you have to travel to meetings and jobsites you can't just sit at the office.

[NotNow]

That is not what those terms mean.  Many, many DUI's are derived from crashes.  I'm sure that you don't mean to defend drinking and driving, and that you are saying that you believe the .08 standard to be to low, and the punishment to much.  That would be a valid debate point, but I don't see how drinking and driving could be defended.  Decent, hard working kids that you know might need to learn how to drink responsibly, and have a designated driver if they need transportation at the end of the night.  A once a week drinker can kill someone just as fast as a hard core alcoholic.  

You obviously have a problem with the DUI laws.  That's OK.  But Officers are not falling all over themselves to make DUI arrests.  They are a pain, but part of the job.  Also, perhaps you should actually check the crash statistics.  And listen to some of the surviving family members of the victims of this crime.  Perspective here is important.  That is where the MADD organization came from.

[ChriswUfGator]

Well I did some more reading on this.

Turns out their probable cause for having a judge issue a warrant ordering an involuntary blood test is, get this, the refusal to submit itself. They have unilaterally determined for the purposes of these stops that any refusal to submit to a mandatory breath test at this roadside checkpoint, regardless of the reason, is a sufficient showing of probable cause to justify a warrant by itself. Ludicrous, considering I'd personally refuse on moral grounds if I found myself in that situation.

Folks, this is the same thing as the cops randomly knocking on everyone's doors demanding you consent to let them search your house, and then using your declining to consent by itself as probable cause to obtain a warrant. I've never heard of anything like this, it's really shocking.

[NotNow]

Where did you find that, Chris?  I can't believe that any judge would issue a search warrant based on refusal alone.  They must be adding additional observations.  There has to be more to this story.

[ChriswUfGator]

Well the MADD press release / aka "news article" goes to some lengths to make it sound better better than it is, but once I read a dozen different forums on this (judging from the kickback on this one, in the span of a single day, this is grossly unpopular) I realized I had missed the interpretation the first read through. Google this and start reading the various stuff that comes up, one forum I forget which one had an interview posted with the Hillsborough chapter president of MADD and it was horrifying.

It's also right in the original article, I just missed it the first time. The article says the checkpoints are "No Refusal" breathalyzer checkpoints, and that a judge will be onsite to issue a warrant on the spot "if you refuse." Now logically, they're not going to have any additional evidence between the initial checkpoint stop where you're requested to take a portable breathalyzer and the issuance of a warrant for a mandatory blood test if you refuse.

The only thing these people will have done by that point is be stopped without reasonable suspicion and refuse a request for a breathalyzer test that was not made with probable cause to begin with. And if they refused the breath test, they're certainly not going to in the meantime have consented to field sobriety exercises they have absolutely no obligation to perform are they? Once you slice and dice this one, it appears they are interpreting the refusal as providing sufficient probable cause to justify a blood test.

I'll go ahead and call this one, I think this is going to prove a waste of everyone's time. This turns 30 years of DUI law in this state on its ear. The duration of the random stop exceeds 3 minutes / reasonable, there is no probable cause for a breathalyzer let alone a warrant for a blood test, there is no accident involving death, injury, or property damage. I bet they lose every single DUI they get from these things, except the couple people who don't know any better and plead out.

And the number of those folks is dwindling, IME, because the fines, penalties, SR-22 insurance costs, driving courses, interlock devices, substance abuse evaluations, monitoring, and all the other money-making crap err...I mean "help" that the state has begun automatically requiring of everyone in that situation has now grown to be far more expensive than a $10k retainer to just get off the hook entirely. This is just bound to backfire, as so many people fight DUIs now because the penalties are so onerous.

I am honestly horrified by this whole thing. Will be interesting to see what happens when this makes it to court.

Also, I hope they don't plan on having any of the warrant-signing judges available to hear cases arising from these stops, I don't see how that wouldn't be a conflict, since wouldn't the judge now be a potential witness?